Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: What is Anthroconservatism?

  1. #1
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Nachtengel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Posts
    6,360
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    198
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,147
    Thanked in
    663 Posts

    What is Anthroconservatism?



    The Flag of Anthroconservatism



    By THE PROFESSOR, the Movement's Founder


    What is Anthroconservatism?


    Anthroconservatism is an entirely new political ideology, based on a convergence of science and conservative thought. Anthroconservatives seek to ground their conservative principles in an objective account of human nature. Recent discoveries in the disciplines of anthropology and evolutionary psychology have made it possible to construct a more accurate portrait of human nature than has ever been possible before. The goal of Anthroconservatism is therefore to develop new policies, forms of social organization, and beliefs that are more in line with human nature. Anthroconservatives assert that to live “the good life” human beings must follow their natural instincts.


    The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology


    Anthropology is the study of man, both as a biological creature and as a rational animal capable of creating culture and language. Evolutionary psychology, on the other hand, is a scientific approach to understanding the workings of the human mind, based on the logic of the theory of evolution by natural selection. According to evolutionary psychology, the human mind has developed in response to specific selective pressures in the “environment of evolutionary adaptedness,” or EEA. During this formative time in human history, men and women lived as hunter-gatherers, under very different circumstances than they do today. Importantly, even though humans have lived in advanced agricultural and/or industrial societies for roughly 10,000 years, anatomically and psychologically modern humans have existed for about 100,000 years, and for the vast majority of this time they lived as simple hunter-gatherers. Given the slow pace of evolution, it is highly unlikely that the human mind has changed greatly since the end of the Stone Age. What this means is that the human mind as we know it today was originally designed to help humans prosper as hunting and gathering tribesmen. More importantly, if we can use the tools of anthropology and evolutionary psychology to understand the exact conditions in which early man lived, we can begin to understand what sort of attitudes, behaviors, and social institutions would have been needed to cope with the relevant challenges. We can then test these hypotheses scientifically, and in the process reveal important truths about human nature.

    To use a common example, based on the scarcity of calorie-rich fats and sugars in the EEA, we might hypothesize that the human mind and body would be strongly attracted to fats and sugars, and would be instinctually inclined to eat large quantities of both when the opportunity arises (which is not to deny, of course, that one's tastes can be altered, to some extent, based on culture and experience). This theory – that human beings will have a sweet tooth and a hankering for fatty foods, in short – can be tested and proven scientifically, by measuring the physical and psychological response of human beings to sweet and fatty foods. Significantly, even if in today's society over-indulgence in high-calorie foods is self-destructive, the more fundamental point is that man's essential nature was not formed in response to modern conditions, but in response to challenges he faced in the EEA. Man is still, genetically, biologically, and psychologically, a product of Stone Age conditions. This realization has, as it turns out, many vitally important implications for politics and ethics.


    The Philosophy of Anthroconservatism


    Anthroconservatives assume that knowing who man is is critical to deciding what he ought to be. Many scientists and philosophers have long held that there is no relationship between what is (which is the domain of science) and what ought to be (which is the domain of philosophy, ethics, and religion). Anthroconservatives reject this “Is vs. Ought Dichotomy.” We assert, along with Aristotle, that man's dignity and purpose are to be found in his nature, and this nature can be discovered using the tools of science. Anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists are shedding new light on human nature everyday, and this is knowledge of undeniable relevance to politics and ethics. Simply put, human nature adds up to a “plan” that nature intends individual men and women to follow. It is possible, as discussed below, for human beings to concoct new systems of thought and value systems to guide their behavior and beliefs, but because it is possible does not make it right. The truth is that no biological creature – like man – has any purpose “higher” than the fulfillment of its essential nature. Along these lines, even many great religious traditions admit that “natural law,” derived from an understanding of human nature, is analogous to divine law. For man, this means that fidelity to his natural instincts is the highest political, social, and ethical imperative.* In a sense, this should come as no surprise: man has no more fundamental or transcendent identity than that provided by his genes, so surely to live according to the “plan” embedded in those genes is to live in the way a human being should. That some may reject this idea – and cling to the notion that man has a purpose above and beyond what his genes prescribe – is understandable, but no such purpose ever has been, or ever will be, identified objectively and scientifically.

    Although it may seem simple enough to state that man ought obey his human nature, it is a goal that is not so easy to accomplish. This is because there are three basic components to human psychology, and the natural, or biological, instincts are only one of them. To put it simply, the natural instincts have competition – stiff competition, as it turns out.


    The Components of the Human Mind


    In addition to the natural instincts, man possesses the faculty of reason, which might be compared to the computational ability of a computer, except that man's rational, logical faculty is much more powerful than this. Reason, although it is hard to define, is man's analytical capacity; it is his faculty for abstract thought. It is through the reason that man can solve difficult problems. It is also through the reason that man can create language – a vital resource virtually absent in other animals. Importantly, reason, although it is an immensely powerful tool, is only that. It is not a transcendent faculty through which man can learn, or develop from scratch, a “higher purpose” for himself. As Aristotle said, “Reason, by itself, moves nothing.” This is to say, the reason can help us to analyze and express our beliefs and goals, and even develop ways of moving towards them, but it cannot create these beliefs and goals out of nothing. It is, more properly, our instincts that are the fount of the deep-seated emotions and longings which are at the core of what it means to be human.

    It has already been said that the human mind contains three basic components. One is the natural instincts. Another is the reason. The last is the will. The will is also often known as “consciousness,” and it is the faculty of the mind that permits us to choose which of our values, goals, or beliefs will be paramount in any given situation. That is, the will presupposes conflicts in human psychology, and it helps us resolve them. Most often, it mediates between the instincts and the reason. Unfortunately, the methodology of the will, and the nature and substance of consciousness, are very mysterious to scientists. Many brain specialists even deny that “the will” exists – asserting that the impression that human beings have that they can decide freely between multiple alternatives is an illusion. Be this as it may, it is impossible to make sense of the mind in human terms without acknowledging the existence of the instincts, the reason, and the will.


    The Problem of the “Artificial Instincts” and “Semantic Manipulation”


    Here it may well be asked: if man is a biological creature, endowed with instincts, reason, and will, then what exactly is the problem? Why do these three faculties not work in concord, producing a well-integrated and purposeful human being? The answer lies in two concepts of vital importance to Anthroconservatism: “artificial instincts” and “semantic manipulation.”

    Because of the sheer power and complexity of man's faculty of reason, unfortunately it has become possible for this rational ability to acquire a life of its own. Through language and culture, and by manipulating and distorting the expression of the preexisting natural instincts – like love of one's kin, for instance – man can create, rationally and abstractly, new and related concepts – like the idea that the soldier with whom one fights on the battlefield is one's “brother.” Basically, these new “artificial instincts,” which can be shared and cultivated with relative ease, are attenuations or distortions of the natural instincts that human beings are born with. This is, of course, what gives these artificial instincts their attractive power. The problem, however, is that artificial instincts are often such convincing substitutes for the real thing that they can distract men and women from dutiful obedience to their natural inclinations. To use the same analogy, it is not so difficult to make a man believe and act as if his comrade on the battlefield really is his brother, and to forget that his actual brother is a thousand miles away. The danger here is obvious: the active cultivation of “artificial instincts,” through language and culture, by the devious and the intelligent few, can have the calamitous effect of turning the silent majority into mindless drones, who cast aside their natural instincts and become entangled in a new set of beliefs, values, and institutions that may have little to do with what their own nature would point them towards. This process I call “semantic manipulation.” History is quite obviously replete with millions of fine examples of semantic manipulators in action. Since we have already concluded, though, that man's highest purpose lies in living according to his essential, biological nature, the idea that we must all fall victim to the manipulatory schemes of unnatural deceivers is utterly unacceptable.

    Thus, Anthroconservatives believe that man is confronted by a fundamental choice. He can live according to the reason, which means, in effect, allowing intelligent, smooth-talking charlatans to concoct ideological illusions that will guide him towards psychological slavery, or he can live according to the natural instincts, which represent nature's plan for a truly human existence. That we must choose the natural instincts is clear.


    Human Nature: The Shape of Things to Come


    What shape, we may now ask, do those instincts take? There is good news: unsurprisingly, human nature, illuminated as it has been by advances in anthropology and evolutionary psychology, is moderate and restrained. In the EEA, man was, by necessity, a social animal, who relied upon close relationships with kinsmen and community members to survive. Thus, man was – and is! – far from the bestial savage that many illustrations of human nature might depict. Of the hundreds of crucial insights into human nature that evolutionary psychology has provided us, perhaps the most significant is this: man is, above all, a kin-centered being. The process of mating, producing children, and raising them to fruitful adulthood – not in isolation, but as part of a family and a community working together – has always been, and always will be, central to what it means to be human. When one considers that, in the EEA, communities of greater than 5,000 people simply did not exist, it becomes obvious that small, intimate networks of nuclear and extended families, as well as functional communities of “bands” and “tribes,” were the very essence of human sociality. Moreover, the human instinct for “bounded” sociality has not significantly changed in the last 10,000 years, ever since the hunter-gatherer lifestyle largely disappeared. Simply put, despite the fact that we now live in cities, buy our food in grocery stores, and spend more time with anonymous co-workers than we do with most of our family members, we still yearn, in the deepest corners of our psyches, to gather around the hearth with those who are closest to us, and to rely on them for help when we are most in need – and this remains the case despite the efforts of manipulatory ideologists, advertising gurus, and religious zealots to lure us away from our fundamental loyalties to kith and kin in the service of a “greater good.” The more things change, one might say, the more they stay the same.

    The lessons of human nature are, as it turns out, not always simple ones. To point to the importance of family ties is a relatively easy thing, after all – but to uncover precisely how the full range of human values should be calibrated and then implemented in a society formed according to the “natural instincts” is extremely difficult. In addition to the fact that much about the human mind remains a mystery, there is the undeniable fact that, although we may wish to be faithful to the natural instincts, absolute necessity requires us to modify or abandon some of them. To return to an earlier, admittedly rather silly, example – just because it is “natural” for man to eat the whole rack of lamb and the cherry pie, does not mean that he should. Nevertheless, on the whole, Anthroconservatives assert that knowledge of the natural instincts, and obedience to those instincts, is the best guide that mankind has to “the good life.” And, to the Anthroconservative, there is a degree of dignity and honor in being true to oneself that cannot be found by following any other path.


    The Political Lessons of Human Nature

    Politically speaking, the creed of Anthroconservatism revolves around a few key themes. One, man was not built for participation in a mass society. On the contrary, his social instincts were designed to facilitate life within his band or his tribe, within which kinship ties would have loomed larger than any other social bond. Thus, man is built – hard-wired, as it were – to love his kin, and anything that stands in the way of that love (and much in modern society does stand in the way, make no mistake) is against nature, pure and simple. Two, because of man's limited sociality, most efforts to create larger social units – be they corporations, churches, or nation-states – are founded on semantic manipulation. This does not make all large forms of social organization inherently evil, but it does make them attentuations of what is inherently good. The logical answer to this dilemma is not to destroy corporations, churches, or nation-states, but to confront their leaders with the truth about human nature, and to remind them to respect the freedom of the people to live according to their natural instincts, and not according to a false mantra that is devised for them and imposed “from above.” What this means is that large social units should be constructed on a cellular basis, and they should draw their strength from the healthy functioning of the smaller cells, pulsing with life and suffering as little interference from centralized authorities as is practical.

    What all this means is that the message of Anthroconservatism can be summarized in these stark terms: it is the negation of ideology – and all the manipulation and oppression which abstract ideological constructs bring with them – and it is the exaltation of human freedom. Anthroconservatives wish for a world in which human nature is understood and respected, and all may live in accordance with their innermost identity. They desire that the most dastardly lies of extremist ideology and dogmatic religion be exposed as false, so that men and women can experience the higher truths that flow from within them, in the form of the natural instincts. They seek the enthronement of family and community ties as the foundation of all social order, and the diminution of centralized power, in all its forms. And lastly, and perhaps most importantly, Anthroconservatives seek, in the absence of a total victory of the natural instincts over semantic manipulation in society as a whole, to cultivate in themselves, at the individual, family, and community level, knowledge of and respect for that which makes us human. For, although Anthroconservatives may succeed only partially in remaking society, it is well within their grasp to remake themselves – and to do so in the image which nature intended.

    *It is, of course, hardly original to suggest that human nature should be the basis for human ethics, Nor is it unique to Anthroconservatism to suggest that evolutionary psychology could provide the basis for a better understanding of human nature. Other conservative thinkers have written along these lines. The most important modern conservative intellectual in this regard is Prof. Larry Arnhart, at Northern Illinois University. Arnhart has proposed a political-ethical system based on 20 “natural desires” that can be identified using the tools of evolutionary psychology. Arnhart errs, however, in supposing that “prudence” can direct us in deciding which desire should prevail in any given instance – meaning that Arnhart's system of ethics is in the end rationalist rather than essentialist, and relies on the prudential acumen of Arnhart himself rather than on the innate wisdom of the natural instincts. Despite the limitations of Arnhart's “Darwinian Conservatism,” it represents the best alternative to Anthroconservatism currently available.

    http://acbeacon.blogspot.com/p/what-is-anthroconservatism.html

  2. #2
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Mouse Shadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Online
    Wednesday, November 1st, 2017 @ 06:38 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Australian
    Ancestry
    England
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Queensland Queensland
    Location
    Not here anymore
    Gender
    Occupation
    Has Left Skadi
    Politics
    Has Left Skadi
    Religion
    Has Left Skadi
    Posts
    424
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Anthroconservatists are quite justified in their manner and method, so I wish them all the best, and when they crack the code, they'll all get a shock, do more research, get shocked further, panic and then they'll come to Skadi.

    Prof. Larry Arnhart is close, but a little bit off.

    Good going Anthroconservatists, you are on the right track.

    Deeper, dig deeper, dig deeper... Mouse Shadow will be waiting for you at Skadi when you arrive.
    Has Left Skadi. Bye!

  3. #3
    Account Inactive

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    Monday, November 22nd, 2010 @ 11:32 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Scott-Irish, German
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Texas Texas
    Location
    Houston, Texas, USA
    Gender
    Age
    63
    Family
    Married, happily
    Occupation
    Law Enforcement
    Politics
    Spanish Falange/New Christendom
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    100
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    In other words, camouflaged Nazism. No thanks.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Hrodnand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Online
    Sunday, December 2nd, 2018 @ 06:06 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Transylvanian Saxon
    Ancestry
    Austria/GermanBohemia
    State
    Transylvania Transylvania
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Zodiac Sign
    Scorpio
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Project management consultant
    Politics
    Far Centre
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    1,161
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    18
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    24
    Thanked in
    9 Posts
    FAQ: 25 Questions:



    Twenty-Five Frequently Asked Questions About Anthroconservatism



    1. Q: Does Anthroconservatism advocate a return to the Stone Age?

    A: No. Anthroconservatism asserts that the values that ought to guide human behavior in the present day are largely the same values that guided human beings in prehistoric times, because human nature itself has not substantially changed since then. This does not mean, however, that a return to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle is advisable. Anthroconservatism recognizes that conditions have changed, and man must adapt – but in doing so he should be as faithful to his roots and to his instincts as is possible.



    2. Q: Wouldn't following our “instincts” lead to anarchy and violence?

    A: No. This is a common misconception. Man's instincts were formed in a challenging environment in which cooperation was vital to his survival. Aristotle observed more than 2,000 years ago that man is a social animal. Evolutionary psychology is now proving him right. There is no reasonable basis for the view that man is overwhelmingly selfish or bloodthirsty in his predispositions.



    3. Q: Is Anthroconservatism based on anthropology?

    A: Partly, yes. Since Anthroconservatism assumes that man should live, to the greatest extent possible, in conformity with his natural instincts, it becomes highly desirable to ascertain what those instincts are. To piece together an accurate picture of human nature, it is crucial to understand the environment in which early man lived, and what sort of behaviors might have been adaptive in those conditions. Anthropology, based on the insights it can provide into the “Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness,” or EEA, in which human nature was formed, can provide very useful information to Anthroconservatism. In addition, since anthropologists often study hunter-gatherer societies, they are in a unique position to pronounce on how such societies usually function. In short, to be an Anthroconservative is to care passionately about who man fundamentally is, and this represents the core question of the discipline of anthropology.



    4. Q: Is Anthroconservatism based on evolutionary psychology?

    A: Yes. Evolutionary psychology is a dynamic area of study that is providing fascinating insights into the origins and likely structure of human nature. The findings of evolutionary psychology represent the foundation for Anthroconservatism.




    5. Q: Is evolutionary psychology really a “science”? Isn't it mostly guesswork?

    A: Yes and no. There is some truth to the notion that many of the tenets of evolutionary psychology are theoretical, even speculative, in nature. In addition, it must be admitted that a complete understanding of how the mind and the moral sense operate is something that modern science cannot achieve, nor is it likely to be achievable in the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, evolutionary psychology can and does advance compelling and verifiable theoretical explanations for how human behavior is affected by genetically transmitted “instincts” or predispositions which arose in response to challenges human beings faced in the EEA. Scientists are amassing vast amounts of hard data that confirm the truthfulness (and yes, the incompleteness) of evolutionary psychology itself. One of the most valuable conclusions that evolutionary psychology has reached so far is that most previous formulations of human nature – on which many popular ideologies depend – have been deeply flawed.



    6. Q: Why is Anthroconservatism “conservative”?

    A: Anthroconservatism is conservative because it asserts that the answers to many current day problems are to be found in a return to fundamental values from the past. It is also conservative in the sense that it rejects the Enlightenment desire to found a utopia based on a rational reconstruction of human society and its values. Anthroconservatism, while it disagrees with the assumptions of many other ideologies which might also be labeled as “conservative,” has a greater affinity for right-wing thought than it does for left-wing thought. In particular, left-wing thought is usually based on a denial that there is any fundamental human nature, or a refusal to admit that man's biological instincts have any relevance to politics and ethics. Since Anthroconservatism rejects these central tenets of leftism, it is almost by definition a conservative viewpoint. However, it might also be argued that Anthroconservatism is in many respects a centrist ideology, since it sees wisdom on both the left and the right, and rejects ideological dogmatism as incompatible with human nature.



    7. Q: Is Anthroconservatism a form of fascism?

    A: No. Fascism errs in exalting the nation-state over the individual, the family unit, and local communities; it errs in supposing that man is inherently violent and warlike, and that bloody and existential struggle defines his existence; and it errs in its belief that man finds ultimate fulfillment in abject obedience to a charismatic dictator. In these and in many other respects Anthroconservatism and fascism are incompatible. Anthroconservatives are, therefore, anti-fascists.



    8. Q: Does Anthroconservatism advocate eugenics?

    A: No. It is unfortunate that, on many occasions in the past, conservatives with an interest in Darwinism and/or genetics have expressed a desire to purify the human genome of alleged imperfections through a program of eugenics. Any such program would be antithetical to Anthroconservatism, which is a movement based on the embrace of human nature as it is, not as we would wish it to be. Anthroconservatism unhesitatingly condemns eugenics, whether it is pursued to advance left-wing or right-wing goals.



    9. Q: Is Anthroconservatism sexist?

    A: No. While Anthroconservatism posits important differences between male and female psychology, and thus supports differing roles for men and women in society, it does not fetishize these differences, nor does it deny the individual the freedom to transgress socially-constructed gender norms in most instances. Anthroconservatism upholds the equal dignity of both men and women, and desires that each will enjoy the full freedom to live a life in accordance with his or her natural instincts.



    10. Q: Is Anthroconservatism racist?

    A: No. That an instinct predisposing man to a suspicion of “strangers” (broadly defined) exists there can be little doubt. Any notion, however, that this leads man by instinct to a categorical hatred of all those not of his own racial type is absurd. Moreover, there is no justification for the view that one racial group is biologically “superior” to another. Anthroconservatism rejects all such forms of racist pseudo-science. It seeks instead to advance all men, regardless of their racial or ethnic backgrounds, to an awareness of the contours of human nature, and to grant them the freedom to live according to that nature.



    11. Q: Is Anthroconservatism a universal movement?

    A: Yes and no. Anthroconservatism is an ideology based on human nature, and thus it applies to all human beings. On the other hand, every society is a collection of individuals, and every individual has a unique nature of his own. In deciding what values and institutions should prevail in any particular social unit, therefore, it is necessary to consider the natural instincts of the people involved. Thus, although useful generalizations about human nature are possible, no abstract or universal definition of human nature should be applied in all cases. Anthroconservatism, in short, upholds the value of what human beings have in common (for this represents the foundation of society itself), but it also remains mindful of human differences, and in no way seeks to quash those differences.




    12. Q: What type of society would Anthroconservatism like to create?

    A: In simple terms, Anthroconservatism seeks to reform the values and institutions of modern society to more closely mirror the values and institutions that prevailed in the EEA. Thus, Anthroconservatism supports the creation of a society that is much more decentralized (that is, “retribalized”) than is presently the case, and which upholds the central importance of family ties. Modern mass society, political dogmatism, bureaucratization, and crass materialism are the chief enemies of Anthroconservatism, as things stand today. Anthroconservatives recognize that a return to hunter-gatherer or agrarian conditions is impossible, but a reconstruction of society in such a way as to strengthen individual freedom, and family and community ties, is imperative.



    13. Q: Why is Anthroconservatism so critical of “mass society”?

    A: It must be understood that human nature evolved in a context within which social organizations embracing more than approximately 5,000 persons simply did not exist. Thus, man's sociality, although it can be extended beyond these “natural” limits, weakens when an attempt is made to do so. To sustain larger forms of social organization, vast amounts of semantic manipulation, religious indoctrination, and/or ideological reeducation are often needed. Anthroconservatives recognize that the continuing existence of mass society is an absolute necessity in modern times, but there is no reason why large social units cannot be constructed on a cellular basis, so that smaller, more natural, units may flourish within them. Fundamentally, though, Anthroconservatives are suspicious of mass society, because it is so often based upon abstract illusions, and because, in this day and age, its persistent demands are increasingly crowding out and trampling upon community and family ties, as well as the individual's moral freedom.




    14. Q: Does Anthroconservatism overlap with any other major ideologies?

    A: Yes. There are some affinities between Anthroconservatism and classical conservatism, as previously mentioned. In addition, Anthroconservatism recognizes that almost all major ideologies contain at least a kernel of truth. Classical liberalism is right to point to the importance of the individual and to the value of liberty, for instance, but it is wrong to stress these items to the exclusion of other important human needs. Libertarianism is right to advocate the reduction of centralized power, but it errs in seeing individuals as atomistic entities with almost unlimited freedom and few, if any, responsibilities. Overall, Anthroconservatism represents the triumph of a practical, realistic appraisal of human nature over simplistic, dogmatic assertions of ideological purity. It is thus easy to see how conservatives, liberals, libertarians, environmentalists, even socialists, might find in Anthroconservatism much that pleases them, but in the end Anthroconservatism stands on its own merits.



    15. Q: Is Anthroconservatism socialist?

    A: No, by and large. Since socialism tends to look to the nation-state as the ultimate guarantor of social justice and equality, Anthroconservatism is incompatible with most forms of socialism, since they do not provide for sufficient freedom for individuals, families, and communities. Having said that, socialism is a notoriously vague ideal. To the extent that Anthroconservatism seeks to expand human freedom, and to avoid concentrations of power in bureaucracies, corporations, or media elites, it could be seen as a populist ideology built around the interests of ordinary people. Thus, some visions of socialism are similar to Anthroconservatism. The extreme goal of the abolition of private property, however, is utterly anathema to the movement.




    16. Q: Is Anthroconservatism secular or religious?

    A: Anthroconservatism is a secular ideology, based on the scientific discipline of evolutionary psychology. Moreover, the philosophical foundations of Anthroconservatism do not require any type of religious faith. Having said this, nothing in Anthroconservatism is incompatible with religion. On the contrary, the instinct to seek religious enlightenment and belonging is undoubtedly natural. In this sense, the movement favors the maintenance of organized religion, and does not seek to undermine the religious views of its adherents in the least.



    17. Q: What is the relationship between Christianity and Anthroconservatism?

    A: It is obvious that Christianity is open to various interpretations, some of which may be in conflict with particular elements of Anthroconservatism. However, nothing in Anthroconservatism is anti-Christian, and thus participation in the movement and in the Christian faith can be easily reconciled.



    18. Q: What is the attitude of Anthroconservatism to the environment?

    A: Anthroconservatism conceives of man as a biological creature, and it celebrates the natural world as the source of man's inherent value and his fundamental purpose. Given the biological context of the movement, and given man's acknowledged instinct for biophilia, Anthroconservatism can be nothing but pro-environment. Thus, participation in the movement necessitates strong action to protect the environment.




    19. Q: What form of government does Anthroconservatism advocate?

    A: Anthroconservatives recognize a certain degree of wisdom in many different forms of political ideology and in various forms of government. Generally speaking, whatever system of government is adopted should be in conformity with the particular instincts of those who are governed, and the specific environmental and historical conditions then prevailing. Anthroconservatism recognizes democracy as an excellent form of government, but one requiring a favorable constellation of instincts and circumstances to sustain it. Perhaps the clearest trend which can be observed in the political program of Anthroconservatism is support for the decentralization of power, regardless of how that power is wielded, and by whom.




    20. Q: Does Anthroconservatism endorse violence to achieve its goals?

    A: No. While the movement is not pacifist in nature, it conceives of man's inherent predisposition to violence and aggression as limited. Moreover, as long as non-violent avenues exist to popularize Anthroconservative ideals, there can be no justification for the use of violent tactics.




    21. Q: Is Anthroconservatism an extremist ideology?

    A: No. Only if man's natural instincts are themselves conceived of as “extreme” can the claim that Anthroconservatism itself is extreme be supported. On the contrary, man is a social animal, designed to live in relative harmony and peace with his family members and fellow citizens. It is more properly the dogmatic ideologies that Anthroconservatives seek to debunk that are extreme in their claims and in their goals.



    22. Q: What is the attitude of Anthroconservatism to modern technology?

    A: Anthoconservatism is neither for nor against modern technology. It conceives of technology as a tool which man may use for either good or evil purposes. The lionization of technology and the assumption that technological progress will inevitably lead to a utopia, however, are attitudes that the movement condemns. In addition, insofar as modern technology enhances the capacity of the leaders of “mass society” to manipulate and exploit ordinary people, this technology is to be viewed with suspicion.



    23. Q: Does Anthroconservatism support human rights and freedoms?

    A: Yes. Anthroconservatism upholds as its highest goal the expansion of human freedom, especially the freedom to live according to one's natural instincts. It recognizes that each person has human dignity, and that it is unnatural and wicked to deny this. Anthroconservatism asserts that the best foundation for peace, freedom, and social justice is a proper understanding of who man is, and what his purpose is, based on his biological nature.



    24. Q: Does Anthroconservatism support egalitarianism?

    A: Yes and no. Anthroconservatism seeks to achieve freedom and fulfillment for all, not just for a select few. However, it also recognizes that hierarchy is a consequence of human nature, and that human beings differ in their values, goals, and gifts. An equality of outcomes is thus impossible to obtain, and undesirable in itself.




    25. Q: What form of economics does Anthroconservatism support?

    A: Anthroconservatism generally supports free market economics, but it views any form of centralization – whether it is of power or wealth – as inherently dangerous. Anthroconservatism is therefore most strongly in support of small business and small property owners, and it seeks to minimize governmental and corporate power.
    http://acbeacon.blogspot.com/p/faq-25-questions.html
    :Überschöpfung:



Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •